We know that student behavior usually is related to the context
in which it occurs. However, the IEP team will not always be able to directly observe all
the events that bring about or maintain specific student behavior. So-called "setting
events" (sometimes referred to as slow triggers) can exist within the classroom
(e.g., Charles is asked to join a new reading group), or be far removed from it but still
exert a powerful influence over student behavior (e.g., Charles has an argument with
another student at the bus stop before school). External events of this nature may
increase the likelihood of conflict in the classroom, especially if the student is
struggling academically and/or dislikes the subject matter. These setting events (or
specific antecedents for the behavior) often may not be directly observable. In other
cases, the behavior may be serious but not occur frequently enough in settings accessible
to adults to be readily observed (e.g., verbal or physical aggression). In these
instances, the behavior must be assessed by using indirect measures.

Methods of indirect assessment. Indirect or, as it is sometimes called, informant
assessment, relies heavily on the use of interviews with teachers and other adults
(e.g., bus drivers, cafeteria workers, office staff) who have direct contact with the
student. (See Appendix C for a sample interview form.) In addition, a semi-structured
interview with the student, himself, could provide insight into the students
perspective of the situation and yield a more complete understanding of the reasons behind
the inappropriate behavior. It may be useful to follow the same interview format with both
the student and significant adults (e.g., special and regular classroom teachers, support
personnel) and to compare these two sources of information. Even elementary aged students
can be credible informants, capable of sharing accurate information about contextual
factors that influence their behavior. Indirect measures can yield valuable information,
but they usually are not as reliable as direct observation measures. For this reason, IEP
teams must be careful not to put too much faith in information derived from informant
accounts alone. Examples of interviews conducted with teachers and students to help
determine the likely function of a students behavior are included in Appendix D.

Surveys or questionnaires are another source of indirect information. For example, a
Problem Behavior Questionnaire can be administered to one or more teachers who have
day-to-day contact with a student of concern (see Appendix E for sample Problem Behavior
Questionnaire forms). Recalling a typical behavioral episode, teachers read 15 statements
and circle a number on the questionnaire that corresponds to the percent of time each
statement is true for that student. A second form is used for recording and interpreting
the responses from everyone who completed a questionnaire for that student. Any item
marked with a three or above on this profile form suggests the potential function of the
problem behavior. If there are two or more statements scored as three or above (i.e., (50%
of the time) under a particular sub-column (e.g., escape under peers or attention under
adults), then it may indicate a possible primary function of the behavior.

In collecting information regarding the context of a behavior problem, it is important
to understand that contextual factors may include certain affective or cognitive
behaviors, as well. For instance, Juan repeatedly acts out and is verbally threatening
during instruction when given lengthy and difficult assignments. Even so, it may not be
the assignment itself that triggers the acting-out behavior. Rather, it may be the fact
that he knows he doesnt have the skills necessary to complete the work that prompts
an anticipation of failure or ridicule. Or, he may have a family member who is critically
ill; therefore, he finds it difficult to concentrate.

potential observer bias regarding the students behavior (e.g., the observer is
subjected to repeated teacher complaints about the severity of the students
classroom conduct); or

difficulty precisely capturing classroom interactions (e.g., observing a group learning
activity in which students move about the classroom).

In the end, the usefulness of functional behavioral assessment depends on the skills
and objectivity of the persons collecting the information. Accordingly, if the information
is to be helpful to IEP teams, it must be reliable and complete information about the
behavior. Those conducting the functional behavioral assessment must: a) clearly define
the behavior of concern and regularly review that definition; b) have sufficient training
and practice to collect observation and interview data; c) select the most appropriate
assessment procedure(s) for both the behavior and the context; d) collect information
across time and settings using multiple strategies and individuals; and, e) conduct
routine checks of the accuracy of observer scoring/recording procedures.